UDAI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Dr. L.P. Mishra, assisted by Sri Sharad Pathak, for the petitioner and Standing Counsel and Sri Sachin Shukla, for the respondents.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of District Magistrate (respondent -2) dated 04.12.2013, calling for an explanation of the petitioner for committing financial irregularities/embezzlement of Rs. 1,95,000/ - and in not discharging his functions as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat properly, for recovery of Rs. 97,500/ - and ceasing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Pradhan, under Section 95 (1) (g) Proviso of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) INQUIRY Officer gave notice to the petitioner and the complainants and conducted inquiry in the village on 04.07.2013 and submitted his report dated 25.07.2013 showing that on the spot out of 120 toilets for BPL card holders, 75 toilets were not constructed. In which Rs. 1,65,000/ -, i.e was cost of 75 toilets, was embezzled. Money of 20 toilets of APL card holders of previous term was not utilized. Cost of which was Rs. 30,000/ -, was lapsed. District Magistrate, then issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 11.09.2013 calling his reply on the Inquiry Report. The petitioner through his letter dated 28.09.2013 demanded various papers for submitting his reply, which were supplied to him on 14.10.2013. The petitioner submitted his reply on 21.10.2013, in which he had stated that although 120 toilets for BPL card holders were got constructed by him but due to political rivalry 75 toilets were demolished by the rival group and they were removing its trace from the spot but Inquiry Officer illegally not visited the spot. Affidavits of 64 persons were filed by the complainants, out of which most of them were forged affidavits. Money of 20 toilets for APL card holders of previous term is lying in the account. District Magistrate by order dated 04.12.2013 found that in the year 2008 -09, Rs. 37,500/ - was sanctioned for construction of 25 toilets for APL card holders. Previous Pradhan constructed 5 toilets. The petitioner did not utilize the remaining amount for construction of 20 remaining toilets, which remained in the account. Although embezzlement of this amount of Rs. 30,000/ - was not proved but petitioner is guilty of not achieving target of development. In respect of second charge it was found that the petitioner claimed to have constructed 120 toilets for BPL card holders but on the spot 75 toilets were not found. Thus prima facie the petitioner has embezzled an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/ -. On these findings, he, by order dated 04.12.2013, directed the petitioner to submit his explanation for financial irregularities/ embezzlement of Rs. 1,95,000/ -, not achieving the target of development in discharge of his duties as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, for recovery of Rs. 97,500/ - and ceasing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Pradhan, under Section 95 (1) (g) Proviso of the Act. Hence this writ petition has been filed.